India won Op Sindoor fight but slow to set global narrative: Analyst Brahma Chellaney
India may have emerged militarily superior in the recent four-day conflict with Pakistan, but it moved too slowly when it came to setting the all-important international narrative, noted geostrategist Brahma Chellaney said.Indian airstrikes achieved their objective of crippling major Pakistani airbases without provoking an all-out war, Chellaney analysed, while warning that a failure to shape global perception could undermine India's long-term strategic goals. "India's sluggish response time [in setting the global narrative] has cost it diplomatic capital," Chellaney said.advertisement"Let me be frank. India won the battle but lost the narrative. Indian strikes achieved the objective of imposing costs without triggering an all-out war. But India failed to translate its short-term victory into achieving the larger goal of advancing the overall struggle against a rogue neighbour that exports terrorism," he told India Today TV.
According to Chellaney, India's airstrikes on key Pakistani airbases like Nur Khan and Bholari not only avoided confirmed retaliation but also exposed the vulnerabilities of the Chinese weapons platforms used by Pakistan. Despite this, he said, "Losing the international narrative holds significance. It signifies failing to influence broader international perception and understanding of the core issue - Pakistan's cross-border terrorism."India launched Operation Sindoor with precision strikes on nine terror camps in the early hours of May 7, retaliating to the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam, killing 100 terrorists. In the days that followed - May 8, 9 and 10 - Pakistan attempted strikes on Indian military installations. India, however, hit back hard, delivering substantial damage to several critical Pakistani military assets, including airbases, radar sites, air defence systems and command centres.advertisementOn the evening of May 10, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri announced that both countries had agreed to an immediate halt to all military actions, across land, air and sea.Chellaney points to two major reasons for India's faltering on the global front. He said that successive Indian governments have focused too narrowly on shaping domestic opinion while "ceding the international narrative by default".He added, "Operation Sindoor is merely the latest example. Sending delegations of MPs abroad was the equivalent of seeking to close the stable door after the horse had bolted.""India's sluggish response time has cost it diplomatic capital. In keeping with India's bureaucratic culture, India often responds too slowly, allowing others to define the narrative first," he noted.Chellaney cited specific missteps, including a delayed response to US President Donald Trump's boast that he brokered the ceasefire. "India took two full days to respond. By then, the world had come to believe that the US mediated an end to hostilities," he said. "To shape international opinion, we must act swiftly with timely statements and rebuttals to counter disinformation."In a particularly sharp critique, Chellaney said, "The irony is this, India framed Operation Sindoor in powerful symbolism as Indian women avenging the murder of 26 husbands. But that powerful symbolism was not backed up by a proactive public diplomacy campaign."advertisementThe veteran expert believes that India is now scrambling to repair the damage through diplomatic offensives but that the international narrative has already hardened. "What can delegations of MPs do now?" he asked.Currently, seven all-party delegations led by Shashi Tharoor (Congress), Ravi Shankar Prasad (BJP), Sanjay Kumar Jha (JDU), Baijayant Panda (BJP), Kanimozhi (DMK), Supriya Sule (NCP) and Shrikant Shinde (Shiv Sena) are in several countries to brief the governments on Operation Sindoor and India's fight against Pakistan-sponsored terrorism.Earlier, Chellaney said India "snatched defeat from the jaws of victory," while reacting to the unexpected ceasefire understanding announced between India and Pakistan on May 10. Voicing disappointment over the development, the veteran expert said India failed to learn from history and is merely repeating past strategic mistakes."The military movement was in India's favour. Pakistan's air defences proved to be much weaker than Pakistan had expected. They were sending so many drones and missiles into India but not effectively. India, on the other hand, sent a limited number of missiles and drones and was able to hit its targets," Chellaney told India Today TV.Must Watch
IN THIS STORY#India-Pakistan#Operation Sindoor#Jammu and Kashmir
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
13 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Remaining S-400 defence system coming on time, says Russian envoy as he cites India-Pakistan conflict
Russian deputy ambassador Roman Babushkin to New India on Monday said India will receive the remaining regiments of the S-400 strategic air defence missile system by 2026, as scheduled. The S-400 missile system performed well in India's Operation Sindoor against Pakistan, intercepting Pakistani drones and missiles. There have been talks of an additional batch of the missile system. 'We heard that S-400 performed very efficiently during the situation between India and Pakistan,' Roman Babushkin told news agency PTI. Acknowledging that India and Russia have a long history of collaboration, Roman Babushkin said the air defence systems, 'according to what we are experiencing, the situation in Europe, here, this is one of the promising topics of our partnership in defence preparation in general'. "As far as my knowledge goes, the contract for the remaining S-400 units will be according to the schedule. We are open for a promotion of this partnership for the discussion of the expansion of dialogue on air defence system... I think it will be done in 2025, 2026," he added. India inked a $5.43 billion contract with Russia in 2018 for five regiments. Of the five, three have been deployed along the western and northern fronts, bordering Pakistan and China, respectively. India had received the first regiment in December 2021, while the second and third were delivered in April 2022 and October 2023, respectively. Re-christened as 'Sudarshan Chakra', the S-400 can detect, destroy hostile strategic bombers, jets, spy planes, missiles and drones at a range of 380 kilometres. Going by information shared by the Indian government, the acquisition was to be completed by 2023, The New Indian Express reported, citing unnamed sources. The S-400 system's delivery schedule got delayed due to the Russia-Ukraine conflict which affected supply chains and production, the report added. 'The S-400 Missile is a potent system in terms of its operational capability to provide a continuous and effective air defence system to a very large area. With the induction of this system, air defence capability of the nation will be significantly enhanced,' the ministry of defence had said in a statement in 2021. The S-400 system is capable of engaging multiple targets simultaneously, including aircraft, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles, at varying ranges and altitudes. It consists of three main components: missile launchers, a powerful radar, and a command centre. It is capable of targeting aircraft, cruise missiles, and even high-speed intermediate-range ballistic missiles. The S-400 is seen as a major threat by NATO members due to its impressive long-range capabilities. It can engage almost all types of modern combat aircraft.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
16 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC rejects plea on deportation drive in Assam, asks petitioner to move HC
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma told the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court in the matter The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea which alleged that the Assam government has reportedly launched a "sweeping" drive to detain and deport persons suspected to be foreigners without nationality verification or exhaustion of legal remedies. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma told the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court in the matter. "Why are you not going to the Gauhati High Court?" the bench asked senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, who appeared for petitioner All BTC Minority Students Union. Hegde said the plea was based on an order passed by the apex court earlier. "Please go to the Gauhati High Court," the bench observed. Hegde said the petitioner would withdraw the plea to take appropriate recourse before the high court. The bench allowed him to withdraw the plea. The plea, filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed, referred to a February 4 order of the top court which, while dealing with a separate petition, had directed Assam to initiate the process of deportation of 63 declared foreign nationals, whose nationality was known, within two weeks. "Pursuant to the said order (of February 4)... the state of Assam has reportedly launched a sweeping and indiscriminate drive to detain and deport individuals suspected to be foreigners, even in the absence of foreigners tribunal declarations, nationality verification, or exhaustion of legal remedies," the plea claimed. It referred to news reports, including one about a retired school teacher who was allegedly "pushed back" into Bangladesh. "These instances reflect a growing pattern of deportations conducted by the Assam Police and administrative machinery through informal 'push back' mechanisms, without any judicial oversight or adherence to the safeguards envisaged by the Constitution of India or this court," it claimed. "The 'push back' policy, as implemented, violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by deporting individuals without due process, thereby denying them the opportunity to contest their deportation and infringing upon their right to life and personal liberty," the plea claimed. It alleged that the indiscriminate application of deportation directives, coupled with absence of proper identification, verification and notice mechanisms, has resulted in a situation where Indian citizens were being wrongfully incarcerated and threatened with removal to foreign territories without lawful basis. The plea sought a direction that no person shall be deported pursuant to the February 4 order without a prior reasoned declaration by the foreigners tribunal, without adequate opportunity of appeal or review and verification of nationality by the Ministry of External Affairs. It also sought a declaration that the "push back" policy adopted by Assam was violative of Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution and contrary to binding judicial precedents. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Indian Express
22 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Framing the narrative war against Pakistan
Nobody ever really wins the war of narratives. Each side tells its own story — shaped by perceived triumphs, real or imagined — and believes in the glory of its version. No one cares what the other side claims, unless one side was materially and visibly vanquished in a physical fight. That rarely happens. Sample this: As India began striking terror infrastructure across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir on May 7, Pakistan claimed it had shot down six Indian aircraft. India denied it. In fact, New Delhi refused to confirm any losses until last week, when the Chief of Defence Staff tacitly acknowledged that a jet (maybe more, unspecified) had been downed, but that 'the tactical mistake was remedied, and the plan reimplemented' — an implicit way of saying: 'It matters not what we lost, as long as we ultimately won.' The standoff ended in a ceasefire, with each side walking away convinced it had the better of the exchange. India believes it called out Pakistan's nuclear bluff; Pakistan insists it gave as good as it got — claims that remain unverifiable in the fog of war. Meanwhile, Pakistan says little about the pounding its airbases received in the Indian response. So steeped in denial is the country's military establishment that its Army Chief has assumed the rank of Field Marshal — an honorific that reveals more about narrative vanity than battlefield reality. For its part, Delhi is convinced it humbled Pakistan. Islamabad, however, couldn't disagree more. 'We have shattered India's illusion of superiority,' says Pakistan's PM. 'New Delhi has been taught a lesson in respecting the sovereignty of its neighbours.' Even Washington had its version of events. President Trump triumphantly claimed that he convinced both countries to back off. 'I talked trade with them,' he said. India denies it. Pakistan agrees. Who's telling the truth? Hard to say. Perhaps none of them care. Each sticks to its own version. Last week, seven multi-party Indian delegations visited global capitals to explain Delhi's position. Many in the West are sympathetic to India's position — its long-standing concerns about cross-border terrorism and Pakistan's duplicity in dealing with extremist groups. They recognise the provocations India faces and the public pressure on Delhi to respond. Even so, some take India's account with a pinch of salt. Yes, Pakistan was complicit in the Pahalgam terror attack — but why didn't India go after the real perpetrators? Why not share intelligence? Why the secrecy, the social media bans, the coyness in accepting losses, and the reluctance to engage with the international media? Back home, a few seem interested. Most people are content with the version of events presented to them. Perhaps that's the point of a good narrative — to remove the burden of inquiry, so the prevailing storyline is accepted, repeated, and quietly folded into national pride. And therein lies the rub. Narratives are, by their very nature, misleading. They mix fact, half-truth, and convenient fiction to produce a favourable picture. In the end, they mostly convince only the teller. You can believe deterrence has been restored — but it means little if your adversary doesn't agree. The deeper challenge lies in coming to terms with Pakistan's strategic culture. As Christine Fair, Professor at Georgetown University and a keen Pakistan watcher, has long argued, the Pakistan Army operates with an insurgent mindset. It wins simply by not losing. It thrives on confrontation and political relevance. That makes it almost immune to traditional deterrence logic. This is what India must keep in mind. The next time there's a provocation from Pakistan — and there might well be another — New Delhi would do well to resist the urge for political signalling. It's this compulsive need to cater to public opinion and control the narrative that often gets us into trouble. Showing resolve is tricky because it casts restraint as weakness and risks turning action into theatre. The smarter course is to hold fire, stay alert, and choose response over optics. For that, it's important to retain the element of surprise. In the days following the start of the operation, Pakistan's military claimed it had anticipated an Indian strike and was lying in wait. While the details remain unclear, Islamabad suggested it had adopted a restrained posture until Indian aircraft reportedly struck what it described as civilian targets, after which Pakistani forces retaliated by targeting Indian jets. Whether this sequence played out exactly as claimed is open to question. It's also unclear if not targeting the Pakistan military in the opening salvo was a strategic misstep. Yet the broader point stands: Military action, meant more as political messaging, is a risky undertaking. Combat aimed mainly at signalling, not effect, is almost always a mistake. It's worth bearing in mind that in conflicts like the four-day engagement in May, narrative dominance is an illusion. The real contest is not about who speaks loudest, but who adapts, who endures, and who denies the adversary what it wants most: Relevance. The writer is a retired naval officer and strategic affairs commentator based in New Delhi
